DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 6th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 6th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 26-30, 33, 36-39, 54-56, 58-64, 66-73, and 75-84 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections and objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed May 6th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 26-30, 33, 36-39, 54-56, 58-64, 66-73, and 75-84 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claim amendments changed the scope of the claimed invention. See new grounds for rejection below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 6th, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 72-73 and 75-84 are allowed.
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 28-29, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 54, 55, 56 are objected to for depending off objected allowable claim 27.
Examiner indicated in an interview on March 13th, 2026 that if the subject matter of claim 27 was also incorporated into independent claim 62, claims 62-64 and 66-71 would be allowed as well. See attached interview summary record and proposed examiner’s amendment below.
The proposed examiner’s amendment is as follows:
Claim 26, ln. 3: “a tissue resection device configured for coring tissue” is changed to – a tissue resection device configured for coring tissue, wherein the tissue resection device includes: a helical coil electrode, the helical coil electrode is configured to deliver energy to tissue near the helical coil electrode; and a cutting element configured to cooperate with the helical coil electrode for transection of tissue. --;
Claim 62, ln. 4: “first sensor;” is change to – first sensor; a helical coil electrode configured to seal a portion of tissue; and a cutting element configured to cut tissue sealed using the helical coil electrode; --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26, 30, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle (US 20190076164 A1) herein referred to as “Boyle” in view of Brown et al. (US 20130310833 A1) herein referred to as “Brown” further in view of Towne et al. (US 20160030765 A1) herein referred to as “Towne” further in view of Krag et al. (US 20030192557 A1) herein referred to as “Krag”.
Regarding claim 26, Boyle discloses a surgical instrument system for coring tissue from a target tissue site, the system comprising: a tissue resection device configured for coring tissue (excision device 160, Paragraph [0145], Figures 30-35):
an anchor configured to be disposed in a body of a patient such that a distal end of the anchor engages the target tissue site (tissue anchor 157 engages target tissue, Figure 27, Paragraph [0137]),
the anchor configured to guide movement of the tissue resection device toward the target tissue site (the sharpened edge of excision device 160 makes a circular slice of the tissue surrounding the target tissue 43 and is advanced over the target tissue 46 through that slice, preferably until its proximal cutting edge reaches the tissue anchor 157, Paragraph [0146], Figures 32-34);
a handle assembly configured to facilitate interaction between tissue, the anchor, and the tissue resection device (actuation rod 166 is connected to the excision device to facilitate interaction of the excision device over the anchor and through the tissue, Paragraphs [0146]).
However Boyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the handle assembly includes an anchor lock configured to lock a position of the anchor relative to the tissue resection device when the tissue resection device is at a predetermined position relative to the target tissue site.
Brown discloses a tissue cutting device (Abstract) wherein the device comprises a handle assembly including an anchor lock configured to lock a position of the anchor relative to the tissue resection device when the tissue resection device is at a predetermined position relative to the target tissue site (Stent lock 30 holds the proximal end of the tissue/stent anchor 34 firmly allow proximal traction against tissue T2, Paragraph [0065], Figure 2A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle to incorporate
the teachings of Brown by including wherein the device comprises a handle assembly including an anchor lock configured to lock a position of the anchor relative to the tissue resection device when the tissue resection device is at a predetermined position relative to the target tissue site. The motivation to do so being to lock the tissue anchor in place to allow traction against the tissue (Brown, Paragraph [0065]).
Further, Boyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the system further includes a processor configured to: receive three-dimensional data from an imaging device separate from the anchor and the tissue resection device, determine a trajectory for the anchor based on the location of the target tissue site and an entry point on the body; and track a position of a portion of the anchor relative to the target tissue site in three-dimensional.
Towne discloses a method for placing elongate delivery segments (Paragraph [0241]), wherein the system includes a processor configured to: receive three-dimensional data from an imaging device separate from the anchor and the tissue resection device (image capture system 212 utilized in practice to assist an operator to navigate the elongate instrument to locate the target tissue structure, Paragraph [0240]), determine a trajectory for the a, anchor based on the location of the target tissue site and an entry point on the body (desire to place an optical lead between tissue structures or locations a conventional surgical approach may involve creating a surgical incision in the skin (228), an anchor member (236), such as a self-expanding Nitinol multifaceted anchor (such as a star or tubular shape), preferably featuring radio-opaque markers for subsequent radiography, Paragraph [0241]); and track a position of a portion of the anchor relative to the target tissue site in three-dimensional (an anchor member (236), such as a self-expanding Nitinol multifaceted anchor (such as a star or tubular shape), preferably featuring radio-opaque markers for subsequent radiography, Paragraph [0241]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle to incorporate
the teachings of Towne by including wherein the system further includes a processor configured to: receive three-dimensional data from an imaging device separate from the anchor and the tissue resection device, determine a trajectory for the anchor based on the location of the target tissue site and an entry point on the body; and track a position of a portion of the anchor relative to the target tissue site in three-dimensional. The motivation to do so being to track the anchor location during the procedure (Towne, Paragraph [0241]).
However Boyle in view of Towne does not explicitly disclose wherein the three-dimensional data including a location of the target tissue site with respect to fiducial markers on the body of the patient.
Krag discloses methods for locating and defining a target location within the human body (Abstract) wherein the three-dimensional data including a location of the target tissue site with respect to fiducial markers on the body of the patient (a tissue mass 26 of interest is identified through conventional imaging methods, e.g., ultrasound, MRI, X-ray or CAT scan. Next, markers 30 are implanted in tissue portion 24 surrounding tissue mass 26 and defining outer boundaries of tissue volume 22. The number of markers 30 used, and the placement of the markers relative to tissue mass 26, will vary depending upon the location of the tissue mass relative to other types of tissue, e.g., bone or muscle, surgeon preference, size and configuration of the tissue mass and the desired amount of tissue margin 28 (FIG. 1), Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle to incorporate
the teachings of Krag by including wherein the three-dimensional data including a location of the target tissue site with respect to fiducial markers on the body of the patient. The motivation to do so being to bracket the tissue volume or mark the location of the tissue volume for removal (Krag, Paragraphs [0093-0095] and [0106]).
Regarding claim 30, Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag discloses the system of claim 26.
However, Boyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the tracking apparatus comprises one or more of an X-ray device, a computed tomography device, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and ultrasound device, or a fluoroscopy device.
Towne discloses wherein the tracking apparatus comprises one or more of an X-ray device, a computed tomography device, or a fluoroscopy device (an anchor member (236), such as a self-expanding Nitinol multifaceted anchor (such as a star or tubular shape), preferably featuring radiopaque markers for subsequent radiography and/or fluoroscopy location, Paragraph [0241]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle to incorporate
the teachings of Towne by including wherein the tracking apparatus comprises one or more of an X-ray device, a computed tomography device, or a fluoroscopy device. The motivation to do so being to track the anchor location during the procedure (Towne, Paragraph [0241]).
Regarding claim 59, Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag discloses the system of claim 26.
However Boyle in view of Brown and Krag does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine a stop point for the anchor based on the three-dimensional data from the imaging device.
Towne discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine a stop point for the tissue resection device based on the three-dimensional data from the imaging device (desire to place an optical lead between tissue structures or locations a conventional surgical approach may involve creating a surgical incision in the skin (228), an anchor member (236), such as a self-expanding Nitinol multifaceted anchor (such as a star or tubular shape), preferably featuring radio-opaque markers for subsequent radiography, Paragraph [0241]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle to incorporate
the teachings of Towne by including wherein the processor is further configured to determine a stop point for the tissue resection device based on the three-dimensional data from the imaging device. The motivation to do so being to track the anchor location during the procedure (Towne, Paragraph [0241]).
Claims 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag further in view of Krag et al. (US 20070265491) herein referred to as “Krag 2”.
Regarding claim 58, Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag discloses the system of claim 26.
However Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag does not explicitly disclose wherein the anchor includes a hard stop that prevents further advancement of the tissue resection device to position the tissue resection device relative to the target tissue.
Krag 2 discloses wherein the anchor includes one or more hard stops configured to prevent further advancement of the tissue resection device to position the tissue resection device relative to the target tissue site (anchor 300 includes an outwardly projecting pin 308 that serves as a stop, Paragraph [0095]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag to incorporate the teachings of Krag 2 by including wherein the anchor includes one or more hard stops configured to prevent further advancement of the tissue resection device to position the tissue resection device relative to the target tissue site. The motivation to do so being to ensure the anchoring members are projected out into the target tissue mass at a certain length and no further (Krag 2, Paragraph [0128]).
Claims 60 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag further in view of Simon et al. (US 20070249911 A1) herein referred to as “Simon”.
Regarding claim 60, Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag discloses the system of claim 26.
However Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag does not explicitly disclose wherein the surgical instrument system further includes a graphical user interface in communication with the processor, the graphical user interface configured to display at least one of (i) a trajectory for at least one of the tissue resection device or the anchor to follow from the entry point on the body to the target tissue site or (ii) a position of at least one of the tissue resection device or the anchor relative to the target tissue site.
Simon discloses wherein the surgical instrument system further includes a graphical user interface in communication with the processor, the graphical user interface configured to display at least one of (i) a trajectory for at least one of the tissue resection device or the anchor to follow from the entry point on the body to the target tissue site or (the image data and the proposed plan can be displayed on the display 36 (connected to user interface 38, Paragraph [0036-0037]), Paragraph [0121], wherein the projected path can be displayed on the image data in block 200, Paragraph [0122]) or (ii) a position of at least one of the tissue resection device or the anchor relative to the target tissue site (in block 204 an icon representing the catheter, such as a distal tip of the catheter can be displayed on the image data 99 (seen displaying a position of the tissue resection device relative to a target area), Paragraph [0125]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag to incorporate the teachings of Simon by including wherein the surgical instrument system further includes a graphical user interface in communication with the processor, the graphical user interface configured to display at least one of (i) a trajectory for at least one of the tissue resection device or the anchor to follow from the entry point on the body to the target tissue site or (ii) a position of at least one of the tissue resection device or the anchor relative to the target tissue site. The motivation to do so being to track the location of the catheter relative to the projected or planned path for provision feedback regarding the progress or success of the plan (Simon, Paragraph [0125]).
Regarding claim 61, Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, Krag, and Simon discloses the system of claim 60.
However Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag does not explicitly disclose wherein the target tissue site may be selected through the graphical user interface.
Simon discloses wherein the target tissue site may be selected through the graphical user interface (the user interface 38 may be a keyboard, mouse, touch pen, touch screen or other suitable device that allows the user to provide input, Paragraph [0037], a user can determine a position of the tumor 170 to various techniques such as reviewing the image data and inputting a specific location in the image data to a touch screen, keyboard input or other appropriate input methods, Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Brown, Towne, and Krag to incorporate the teachings of Simon by including wherein the target tissue site may be selected through the graphical user interface. The motivation to do to so being to allow a user to determine the site of the tumor (i.e., target tissue site) (Simon, Paragraph [0094]).
Claims 62, 63, 64, 67 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Krag 2 further in view of Carls et al. (US 20100069919 A1) herein referred to as “Carls”.
Regarding claim 62, Boyle discloses a surgical instrument system for coring tissue from a target tissue site (excision device 160, Paragraph [0145], Figures 30-35), the system comprising: a tissue resection device configured to core tissue (excision device 160, Paragraph [0145], Figures 30-35 an anchor (tissue anchor 157 engages target tissue, Figure 27, Paragraph [0137]) including: an elongate member (tissue anchor 157 comprises an elongate member, Figure 27, Paragraph [0137]); anchoring members disposed at a distal end of the elongate member (three pronged treble hook, Figure 27, Paragraph [0137]), the anchor configured to be disposed in a body of a patient such that the anchoring members engage the target tissue site (tissue anchor 157 is elastically expanded to its deployed state and engages the target tissue site, Figure 27, Paragraph [0137]); after the anchoring members of the anchor engage the target tissue site, the tissue resection device being configured to be disposed around the anchor such that the anchor guides movement of the tissue resection device to the target tissue site (the sharpened edge of excision device 160 makes a circular slice of the tissue surrounding the target tissue 43 and is advanced over the target tissue 46 through that slice, preferably until its proximal cutting edge reaches the tissue anchor 157, Paragraph [0146], Figures 32-34).
However Boyle does not explicitly disclose the tissue resection device including a first sensor; a second sensor configured to interact with the first sensor of the tissue resection device, and a processor in communication with the first sensor and the second sensor and configured to: receive, from the first sensor and the second sensor, one or more signals; and track, based on the one or more signals, a position of the tissue resection device relative to the anchor as the tissue resection device is advanced over the anchor to the target tissue site.
Krag 2 discloses a sensor disposed on the anchor (instrument marker 1130, on tissue anchor 1550, Paragraph [0180]);
and a processor in communication with the sensor and configured to (position detection system 1200, Figure 21, Paragraph [0183]): receive, from the second sensor, one or more signals; and track, based on the one or more signals, a position of the anchor as the tissue resection device is advanced into the target tissue site (markers 1300 may be positioned along or adjacent to an axis of the tissue anchor 1550b, but the second and third instrument markers 1130c and 1130b are spaced away from the axis of the tissue anchor, providing three spaced-apart markers in this fashion provides three position point for tracking by the position detection system 1200, Paragraph [0184], Figure 55, the instrument marker 1300 on the tissue anchor 1550, allows the position detection system to pinpoint the position of the cannula’s distal end with respect to an eternal reference location, Paragraph [0186], anchor engaging the tissue site, Paragraph [0187]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Krag 2 by including a sensor; and a processor in communication with the sensor and configured to: receive, from the second sensor, one or more signals; and track, based on the one or more signals, a position of the anchor as the tissue resection device is advanced into the target tissue site. The motivation to do so being to ensure the tissue anchor is positioned in the desired location to grasp the target tissue (Krag, Paragraph [0181])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Krag 2 by including a sensor; and a processor in communication with the sensor and configured to: receive, from the second sensor, one or more signals; and track, based on the one or more signals, a position of the anchor as the tissue resection device is advanced into the target tissue site. The motivation to do so being to determine the position of the tissue anchor with respect to an external reference location (Krag, Paragraph [0186]).
However Krag 2 does not explicitly disclose wherein the tissue resection device includes a first sensor, wherein the first sensor is configured to interact to track a position of the tissue resection device relative to the second sensor of the anchor.
Carls discloses a system and method for positioning a connecting element adjacent an anatomical structure in minimally-invasive surgical procedures (Abstract). Carls further discloses wherein the connecting element includes a second sensor, wherein the second sensor is configured to interact to track a position of the connecting element relative to the anchor (surgical system 10 includes a tracking device 210 associated with connecting element 200and a targeting device 310 associated with anchor 300, tracking device 210 electronically communicates with targeting device 310 to create a signal indicative of relative positioning between the connecting element 200 and the target location of the anchor 300 as the connecting element is displaced through the tissue, Paragraph [0026], guidance system 500 may further include one or more feedback devices 510 to communicate relative position data of connecting element 200 and anchor 300 to the surgeon or user, Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohn 2 in view of Krag to incorporate the teachings of Carls by including wherein the tissue resection device includes a first sensor, wherein the first sensor is configured to interact to track a position of the tissue resection device relative to the second sensor of the anchor. The motivation to do so being to accurately position the connecting element in the desired position relative to the anchor (Carls, Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 63, Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls discloses the system of claim 62.
However Boyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the anchor includes one or more hard stops configured to prevent further advancement of the tissue resection device to position the tissue resection device relative to the target tissue site.
Krag 2 discloses wherein the anchor includes one or more hard stops configured to prevent further advancement of the tissue resection device to position the tissue resection device relative to the target tissue site (anchor 300 includes an outwardly projecting pin 308 that serves as a stop, Paragraph [0095]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls to incorporate the teachings of Krag 2 by including wherein the anchor includes one or more hard stops configured to prevent further advancement of the tissue resection device to position the tissue resection device relative to the target tissue site. The motivation to do so being to ensure the anchoring members are projected out into the target tissue mass at a certain length and no further (Krag 2, Paragraph [0128]).
Regarding claim 64, Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls discloses the system of claim 62.
However Boyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is disposed on the distal end of the anchor.
Krag 2 discloses wherein the sensor is disposed on the distal end of the anchor (marker 1130 is disposed on the distal end of the anchor 1550, Figure 52).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls to incorporate the teachings of Krag 2 by including wherein the sensor is disposed on the distal end of the anchor. The motivation to do so being to pinpoint the position of the distal end of the tissue anchor with respect to an external reference location (Krag, Paragraph [0186]).
Regarding claim 67, Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls discloses the system of claim 62.
However Boyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the anchor includes a plurality of sensors including the second sensor, the plurality of sensors disposed along the anchor and configured to interact with the first sensor of the tissue resection device.
Krag discloses wherein the anchor includes a plurality of sensors disposed along the anchor (the tissue anchor 1550 comprises three instrument markers 1130a-c, Paragraph [0184]).
However Krag does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensors of the anchor are configured to interact with the first sensor of the tissue resection device.
Carls discloses wherein the sensors of the anchor are configured to interact with the first sensor of the tissue resection device (surgical system 10 includes a tracking device 210 associated with connecting element 200 and a targeting device 310 associated with anchor 300, tracking device 210 electronically communicates with targeting device 310 to create a signal indicative of relative positioning between the connecting element 200 and the target location of the anchor 300 as the connecting element is displaced through the tissue (seen as the sensor of the anchor interacting with the tissue resection device, see also Paragraph [0021]), Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls to incorporate the teachings of Carls by including wherein the sensors of the anchor are configured to interact with the first sensor of the tissue resection device. The motivation to do so being to accurately position the connecting element in the desired position relative to the anchor (Carls, Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 69, Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls discloses the system of claim 62.
However Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine a trajectory of the tissue resection device based on an anchor path.
Carls discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine a trajectory of the tissue resection device based on an anchor path (a target trajectory between the connecting element and the target location associated with the anchor is calculated, this target trajectory is compared to the insertion path trajectory to determine a movement suggestion from the insertion path trajectory that would position the connecting element along the target trajectory (seen as determining a trajectory of the connecting element based on the insertion path of the anchor), Paragraph [0056]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls to incorporate the teachings of Carls by including wherein the processor is configured to determine a trajectory of the tissue resection device based on an anchor path. The motivation to do so being to accurately position the connecting element in the desired position relative to the anchor (Carls, Paragraph [0025]).
Claims 66, 70, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls further in view of Simon.
Regarding claim 66, Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls discloses the system of claim 62.
However Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor includes at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an electromagnetic sensor, a photodiode, an optical sensor, an infrared sensor, a magnetic sensor, an eddy current sensor, or a field-effect transistor (FET).
Simon further discloses wherein the sensor includes at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an electromagnetic sensor (the tracking sensor 58 can include an electromagnetic sensor to sense the electromagnetic field generated by the transmitter coil array 46 that can induce a current in the electromagnetic sensor 58, Paragraph [0056]), a photodiode, an optical sensor, an infrared sensor, a magnetic sensor, an eddy current sensor, or a field-effect transistor (FET).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls to incorporate the teachings of Simon by including wherein the sensor includes at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an electromagnetic sensor, a photodiode, an optical sensor, an infrared sensor, a magnetic sensor, an eddy current sensor, or a field-effect transistor (FET). The motivation to do so being to determine the precise location of the device within the patient (Simon, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 70, Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls discloses the system of claim 62.
However Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: receive three-dimensional data from an imaging separate from the tissue resection device in a body of the patient, the three-dimensional data including the location of the target tissue site with respect to fiducial markers on the body of the patient.
Simon discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive three-dimensional data from an imaging separate from the tissue resection device in a body of the patient, the three-dimensional data including the location of the target tissue site with respect to fiducial markers on the body of the patient (the image pre-processor can determine the target location, such as a tumor 170 in the brain 156, Paragraph [0093], points selected to perform registration are the fiducial markers or landmarks 60, such as anatomical landmarks, the landmarks 60 can be artificial landmarks 60 that are positioned on the patient 14 or anatomical landmarks that can easily be identified in the image data, Paragraph [0062])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls to incorporate the teachings of Simon by including wherein the processor is further configured to: receive three-dimensional data from an imaging separate from the tissue resection device in a body of the patient, the three-dimensional data including the location of the target tissue site with respect to fiducial markers on the body of the patient. The motivation to do so being to determine the appropriate target for the procedure (Simon, Paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 71, Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls and Simon discloses the system of claim 70.
However Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine a trajectory of the anchor based on at least one of the three-dimensional data received from imaging device or the information from the sensor.
Simon discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine a trajectory of the device based on at least one of the three-dimensional data received from imaging device or the information from the sensor (the path can also be generally completely determined by a processor, such as a computer processor. That is, a computer processor can execute the computer program based upon the various algorithms and instructions disclosed herein to produce a proposed plan. The path determined by the plan optimizer can be based upon the image data 99 to determine an entry point, a path, and a final destination of an instrument, such that the catheter 52, Paragraph [0099]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls and Simon to incorporate the teachings of Simon by including wherein the processor is configured to determine a trajectory of the anchor based on at least one of the three-dimensional data received from imaging device or the information from the sensor. The motivation to do so being to correctly place the device in the final destination (Simon, Paragraph [0099]).
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls further in view of Kopel et al. (US 20190246946) herein referred to as “Kopel”.
Regarding claim 68, Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls discloses the system of claim 62.
However Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls does not explicitly disclose wherein the second sensor is configured to scan tissue near the second sensor and generate three-dimensional data including a location of the target tissue site.
Kopel discloses a surgical system wherein the surgical tool comprises an ultrasound sensor (Abstract). Kopel further discloses wherein the sensor is configured to scan tissue near the sensor and generate three-dimensional data including a location of the target tissue site (one or more 3D renderings may be generated based on the ultrasound image data acquired by the ultrasound sensor 63 of EBUS 62, Paragraph [0047], ultrasound images 514 captured by the ultrasound sensor are shown overlaid onto the 3D model, with a 3D rendering of the target 516 displayed thereon, Paragraph [0083]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle in view of Krag 2 and Carls to incorporate the teachings of Kopel by including wherein the second sensor is configured to scan tissue near the second sensor and generate three-dimensional data including a location of the target tissue site. The motivation to do so being to create a 3D model for the clinician to facilitate identification of the target (Kopel, Paragraph [0047]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dana Stumpfoll whose telephone number is (703)756-4669. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm (CT), M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joanne Rodden can be reached on (303) 297-4276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights